Are You on the Right Platform? A Conjoint Analysis of Social Media Preferences in Aesthetic Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Social media has become an indispensable tool for patients to learn about aesthetic surgery. Currently, procedure-specific patient preferences for social media platforms and content are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate social media preferences of patients seeking aesthetic surgery. METHODS: We utilized a choice-based conjoint analysis survey to analyze the preferences of patients seeking 3 common aesthetic procedures: breast augmentation (BA), facial rejuvenation (FR), and combined breast/abdominal surgery (BAB). Participants were asked to choose among social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, Tumblr, YouTube), information extent (basic, moderate, comprehensive), delivery mechanism (prerecorded video, live video, photographs, text description), messenger (surgeon, nurse/clinic staff, patient), and option for interactivity (yes/no). The survey was administered using an Internet crowdsourcing service (Amazon Mechanical Turk). RESULTS: A total of 647 participants were recruited: 201 in BA, 255 in FR, and 191 in BAB. Among attributes surveyed, participants in all 3 groups (BA, FR, BAB) valued social media platform as the most important (30.9%, 33.1%, 31.4%), followed by information extent (23.1%, 22.9%, 21.6%), delivery mechanism (18.9%, 17.4%, 18%), messenger (16%, 17%, 17.2%), and interactivity (11.1%, 9.8%, 11.8%). Within these attributes, Facebook ranked as the preferred platform, with comprehensive information extent, live video as the delivery mechanism, and surgeon as the messenger as most preferred. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of social media platform is the most important factor for patients, and they indicated a preference for comprehensive information delivered by the surgeon via live video on Facebook. Our study elucidates social media usage in common aesthetic populations, which can help improve aesthetic patient outreach.

Drivers of Hospital Costs in the Self-Pay Facelift (Rhytidectomy) Patient: Analysis of Hospital Resource Utilization in 1890 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Rhytidectomy is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures by plastic surgeons. Increasing attention to the development of a high-value, low-cost healthcare system is a priority in the USA. This study aims to analyze specific patient and hospital factors affecting the cost of this procedure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of self-pay patients over the age of 18 who underwent rhytidectomy using the Healthcare Utilization Cost Project National Inpatient Sample database between 2013 and 2014. Mean marginal cost increases patient characteristics, and outcomes were studied. Generalized linear modeling with gamma regression and a log-link function were performed along with estimated marginal means to provide cost estimates. RESULTS: A total of 1890 self-pay patients underwent rhytidectomy. Median cost was $11,767 with an interquartile range of $8907 [$6976-$15,883]. The largest marginal cost increases were associated with postoperative hematoma ($12,651; CI $8181-$17,120), West coast region ($7539; 95% CI $6412-$8666), and combined rhinoplasty ($7824; 95% CI $3808-$11,840). The two risk factors associated with the generation of highest marginal inpatient costs were smoking ($4147; 95% CI $2804-$5490) and diabetes mellitus ($5622; 95% CI $3233-8011). High-volume hospitals had a decreased cost of - $1331 (95% CI - $2032 to - $631). CONCLUSION: Cost variation for inpatient rhytidectomy procedures is dependent on preoperative risk factors (diabetes and smoking), postoperative complications (hematoma), and regional trends (West region). Rhytidectomy surgery is highly centralized and increasing hospital volume significantly decreases costs. Clinicians and hospitals can use this information to discuss the drivers of cost in patients undergoing rhytidectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Role of Injectables in Aesthetic Surgery: Financial Implications.

Background: The plastic surgeon competes with both core and noncore physicians and surgeons for traditional cosmetic procedures. In 2007, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) joined efforts to form a Cosmetic Medicine Task Force to further analyze this trend. Objectives: Our objective is to document and quantify the patient capture and total collections generated in a single surgeon's practice exclusive from Botulinum Toxin A and filler injections over a 10-year period. We subsequently identified the effect and importance that fillers and Botulinum Toxin A have on an active cosmetic practice. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all male and female patients who received Botulinum Toxin A or soft tissue filler injections (noninvasive aesthetic treatment) in a single surgeons practice from January 2004 to December 2013 was undertaken. Only those patients new to the practice and who were exclusively seeking out Botulinum Toxin A or fillers were included in the study. Chart review then identified which of these selected patients ultimately underwent invasive aesthetic surgery during this 10-year period. Noninvasive and invasive aesthetic surgery total collections were calculated using billing records. Results: From January 2004 to December 2013, 375 patients entered the senior surgeon's practice specifically requesting and receiving noninvasive aesthetic treatments. Of these 375 patients, 59 patients (15.7%) subsequently underwent an aesthetic surgery procedure at an average of 19 months following initial noninvasive aesthetic treatment. Of these 375 patients, 369 were female and 6 were male. The most common initial invasive aesthetic procedure performed after injectable treatment included 22 facelifts (18.5%), 21 upper eyelid blepharoplasties (17.6%), and 15 endoscopic brow lifts (12.6%). Total collections from noninvasive aesthetic sessions and invasive surgery combined represented US$762,470 over this 10-year span. This represented US$524,771 and US$396,166 in total collections for injectables and surgery respectively. Conclusions: Noninvasive aesthetic surgery is a critical part of a plastic surgery practice. A measurable and significant number of patients who sought out a single plastic surgeon exclusively for noninvasive treatment ultimately underwent traditional invasive cosmetic surgical procedures.

What Do Our Patients Truly Want? Conjoint Analysis of an Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice Using Internet Crowdsourcing.

BACKGROUND: What do patients want when looking for an aesthetic surgeon? When faced with attributes like reputation, years in practice, testimonials, photos, and pricing, which is more valuable? Moreover, are attributes procedure-specific? Currently, inadequate evidence exists on which attributes are most important to patients, and to our knowledge, none on procedure-specific preferences. OBJECTIVES: First, to determine the most important attributes to breast augmentation, combined breast/abdominal surgery, and facelift patients using conjoint analysis. Second, to test the conjoint using an internet crowdsourcing service (Amazon Mechanical Turk [MTurk]). METHODS: Anonymous university members were asked, via mass electronic survey, to pick a surgeon for facelift surgery based on five attributes. Attribute importance and preference was calculated. Once pre-tested, the facelift, breast augmentation and combined breast/abdominal surgery surveys were administered worldwide to MTurk. RESULTS: The university facelift cohort valued testimonials (33.9%) as the most important, followed by photos (31.6%), reputation (18.2%), pricing (14.4%), and practice years (1.9%). MTurk breast augmentation participants valued photos (35.3%), then testimonials (33.9%), reputation (15.7%), pricing (12.2%), and practice years (3%). MTurk combined breast/abdominal surgery and facelift participants valued testimonials (38.3% and 38.1%, respectively), then photos (27.9%, 29.4%), reputation (17.5%, 15.8%), pricing (13.9%, 13.9%), practice years (2.4%, 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Breast augmentation patients placed higher importance on photos; combined breast/abdominal surgery and facelift patients valued testimonials. Conjoint analysis has had limited application in plastic surgery. To our knowledge, internet crowdsourcing is a novel participant recruitment method in plastic surgery. Its unique benefits include broad, diverse and anonymous participant pools, low-cost, rapid data collection, and high completion rate.

The unwritten price of cosmetic tourism: an observational study and cost analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Cosmetic tourism, driven by the promise of inexpensive operations abroad, is increasingly popular despite warnings from professional bodies regarding associated risks. Increasing numbers of individuals have presented to our department requesting NHS treatment of complications from such surgery. We set out to characterize these patients and evaluate costs incurred through their assessment and management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational study was conducted from 2007 to 2009 on patients presenting to a tertiary referral Plastic Surgery practice with complications of cosmetic tourism surgery. Demographic characteristics, as well as those related to the operation, were recorded. Hospital patient flow pathways were constructed, cost analysis performed using Patient Level Costing, and expenditure and profitability calculated. KEY RESULTS: Nineteen patients presented within the study period. Most operations were performed in Europe or Asia, and were primarily breast augmentation procedures (n=13). The principal complications were wound infection or dehiscence, and poor cosmetic results. Eleven patients received NHS treatment, at a cost of £120,841. The mean cost for all patients' management was £6360 (range: £114-£57,968), rising to £10,878 for those accepted for treatment. For 8 of the 9 patients (89%) for whom full patient level costing was available, the hospital incurred a financial loss. CONCLUSION: The costs to the NHS of managing complications of cosmetic tourism are substantial, and underestimated by central funding agencies.

Impact of the current economy on facial aesthetic surgery.

BACKGROUND: American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) survey data showed a 16.7% decrease in the total number of aesthetic surgical procedures from 2008 to 2009, whereas plastic surgeons have seen an increase of 0.6% in their nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. OBJECTIVE: The authors describe the results of two surveys-one administered to potential patients, one to physicians-assessing the impact of the economy on patient choices in aesthetic facial surgery. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted for this study-one from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (AAFPRS) and one from the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF). Both surveys utilized the unique maximum difference (MaxDiff) scaling format, which assesses respondent opinions through attribute/question grouping and multiple exposures to the same parameter, rather than traditional one-time questioning. In this way, MaxDiff analysis helped identify the varied drivers of patients' medical antiaging treatment (MAT) selection. The AAFPRS survey was conducted online through Synovate's Global Opinion Panel to identify an appropriate audience of potential patients. The ASERF survey contained both MaxDiff and traditional questions and was e-mailed to 2267 ASAPS members. RESULTS: Data from the AAFPRS patient survey showed that 53% of respondents had been affected by the economy in their decisions regarding MAT procedures, with many seeking out less-costly options such as microdermabrasion. An overwhelming majority (95%) also reported that they would prefer a longer-lasting treatment over an immediate effect with shorter duration; furthermore, 60% felt that duration of treatment was more important than cost in selecting a facial aesthetic procedure. In the ASERF surgeon-based portion of the study, 61% of plastic surgeons felt that patients preferred long-lasting results over immediate ones, but 63% also reported that cost was a more important factor for their patients than duration. CONCLUSIONS: Extrapolating from the patient-reported survey preferences, the authors conclude that nonsurgical facial aesthetic treatment plans should currently be focused more on longevity rather than on immediate impact. There is currently a disconnect between patient preferences and surgeon perception of those preferences, which may be remedied with increased education for both groups. It is worth noting that many patients would be willing to accept a higher cost if it was correlated with a longer-lasting result.

Auditing your practice: nonfinancial variables to survive or thrive.

The strategy of the nonfinancial audit is discussed, with specific information for the facial plastic and aesthetic surgeon. The author provides specific questions and a roadmap for the practitioner to follow to complete a nonfinancial audit to expose the strengths and weaknesses of their practice. This article discusses quality, productivity, service, patient management, marketing, third-party contractors, and other essential aspects of the practice audit.

Establishing a profitable skin care practice in a facial plastic surgery office.

Facial plastic surgeons seeking information about establishing and maintaining a first-rate skin care program and practice in their office will learn practice management tips and business advice. This content begins with presenting steps in patient evaluation and continues through development of a care plan. Discussion includes approach to skin care products, sunscreen, and related preventive and restorative methods. Detailed discussion is included of developing a personalized skin care plan. The content concludes with essential business tips and marketing advice for the facial plastic surgeon to include skin care in the surgical practice, including the way in which these are handled in the author's practice.

Economic analysis of "liquid" versus surgical face-lift: are large-volume facial soft tissue filler injection treatments a viable alternative to rhytidectomy?

For many years, rhytidectomy has been the mainstay of facial rejuvenative treatment, and continued improvement of our understanding of the anatomy, aesthetics, and aging of the face has allowed the development of safer, longer lasting, and more natural surgical techniques. However, the renaissance of soft tissue augmentation that began at the start of the new millennium now offers office-based rejuvenative procedures that have been touted as equivalent to traditional surgical procedures, including the "injectable rhinoplasty" and, more commonly, the "injectable face-lift." Although injectable filler treatments cannot exactly simulate the benefits of surgical rhytidectomy, they can significantly rejuvenate the face and obviate or delay the need for surgery. These are touted as simpler as well as easier and cheaper for the patient. But are they? No cost-effectiveness study of these "filler face-lifts" has ever been published, and the need for repeat treatments suggests that at some point in time, patient costs for these procedures may exceed those for a single surgical procedure. This study examines common scenarios for large-volume soft tissue filler facial rejuvenation and compares the costs of these treatments with those of traditional face-lift surgery.

The plastic surgery postcode lottery in England.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The National Health Service (NHS) provides treatment free at the point of delivery to patients. Elective medical procedures in England are funded by 149 independent Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), which are each responsible for patients within a defined geographical area. There is wide variation of availability for many treatments, leading to a "postcode lottery" for healthcare provision in England. The aims were to review funding policies for cosmetic procedures, to evaluate the criteria used to decide eligibility against national guidelines, and to evaluate the extent of any postcode lottery for cosmetic surgery on the National Health Service. This study is the first comprehensive review of funding policies for cosmetic surgery in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All PCTs in England were asked for their funding policies for cosmetic procedures including breast reduction & augmentation, removal of implants, mastopexy, abdominoplasty, facelift, blepharoplasty, rhinoplasty, pinnaplasty, body lifting, surgery for gynaecomastia and tattoo removal. RESULTS: Details of policies were received from 124/149 PCTs (83%). Guidelines varied widely; some refuse all procedures, whilst others allow a full range. Different and sometimes contradictory rules governing symptoms, body mass indices, breast sizes, weights, heights, and other criteria are used to assess patients for funding. Nationally produced guidelines were only followed by nine PCTs. DISCUSSION: A "postcode lottery" exists in the UK for plastic surgery procedures, despite national guidelines. Some of the more interesting findings are highlighted.

Cost outcomes of facial plastic surgery: regional and temporal trends.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the geographic and temporal trends in cosmetic facial plastic surgery procedure costs and frequency during the last decade and to evaluate factors that may influence changes in the demand for cosmetic procedures. METHODS: A survey sent to every (N = 1727) active fellow, member, or associate of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery assessing the costs and frequency of 4 common cosmetic facial plastic surgery procedures (ie, face-lift, brow lift, blepharoplasty, and rhinoplasty) for 1999 and 1989. RESULTS: The annual frequency of the aging-face procedures (ie, face-lift, brow lift, and blepharoplasty) have increased 41% over the last decade while rhinoplasties have declined slightly (18%). Each of the procedures studied have increased in cost since 1989; however, only face-lifts have increased at a rate greater than inflation during this period (average surgeon's fees, $3154-$4582). Although the average cost of each of these procedures is stable across US geographic areas, there seem to be fewer aging-face procedures being performed in the East (represented largely by New England and the northeastern states) compared with the Midwest, South, and West (P< or = .03), while rhinoplasty frequency across these regions is essentially unchanged. In addition to variables such as age, years in practice, and degree of marketing, the strongest correlates with increased cosmetic procedure frequency were the costs of these procedures (P< or = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cost and frequency of cosmetic facial plastic surgery procedures continues to rise across the United States, there are interesting differences in these trends between different regions and procedure type during the last decade. There also seems to be an association between increased cost and increased frequency of these cosmetic procedures.